Beyond Greenspacehttps://beyondgreenspace.net
University of Exeter research on relationships between natural environments, health and wellbeingSun, 10 May 2020 08:35:45 +0000en
hourly
1 http://wordpress.com/https://beyondgreenspace.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/cropped-20170730_142909.jpg?w=32Beyond Greenspacehttps://beyondgreenspace.net
3232New paper: Spending time in the garden linked to better health and wellbeinghttps://beyondgreenspace.net/2020/05/06/gardens/
https://beyondgreenspace.net/2020/05/06/gardens/#respondWed, 06 May 2020 06:53:42 +0000http://beyondgreenspace.net/?p=2940A new paper by Sian de Bell, Mat White and co working with the Royal Horticultural Society, and using data from Natural England, shows that spending time in the garden, whether to garden or relax, is beneficial for health and wellbeing.

The study used national representative data from nearly 8000 respondents to the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment survey. Analysis of the data showed that, after controlling for other factors that might affect the relationships, people who report using the garden for both relaxing and gardening are significantly more likely to report good general health, higher psychological wellbeing, and greater physical activity levels than those who do not spend time in their garden.

We showed that 71% of people who use their garden for gardening or relaxing reported high well being, compared to 61% among people who do not use their gardens. Garden users were also 7% more likely to meet the recommended 150 minutes of weekly moderate or vigorous activity, than non-garden users. The benefits of using the garden were found for all social groups.

The magnitude of the benefits of spending time in the garden to health and wellbeing were similar to the difference in reported health between people living in the wealthiest parts of the country, compared to the poorest.

The study also found that, in comparison to people who did not have access to any kind of outdoor space, people with access to a private garden had higher psychological wellbeing and even those with access to an outdoor space such as a yard were more likely to meet physical activity guidelines.

Who has and who uses gardens?

The majority of people reported having access to some sort of garden or outdoor space. There is some variation in reported availability between socio-demographic groups, for instance more affluent people were more likely to have private gardens than less affluent people (89% AB; 71% DE). People who own their own home were more likely to have private gardens than renters (90% own; 62-64% rent).

Nearly half of people aged over 65 reported that they both gardened and relaxed in their garden, whereas less than a quarter of people aged 16 to 34 used the garden for both of these activities. However, the younger age group were the most likely to report just using the space for relaxing. More people in the socio-economic (SES) group AB reported using their garden for gardening or relaxing than people classed as group DE. Retired people were the more likely to report gardening and relaxing in their garden than any other employment group.

Our findings have important implications given the current lockdown due to Covid-19. They demonstrate how gardens can support health whilst people are confined to home. However, there are some inequalities in garden access in the UK. Whilst the majority of people have access to some sort of garden or outdoor space, younger people and people in more socio-economically deprived groups were less likely to have a private space than older and less deprived groups. The findings emphasise the need to include the provision of private gardens in the planning process to support health and wellbeing.

About the study

The study used data from the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment survey which is run by Natural England and is a large-scale, nationally representative survey which asks people in England about their use of the natural environment, including whether they have access to a garden and whether they use the garden to relax or to garden. It also collects a range of other information from respondents such as age, gender, and home ownership which were considered in the analysis as confounding factors. The data were collected before the COVID lockdown.

Because our paper is behind a paywall, we have provided a little more detail on the study and findings.

Details of the questions we used from MENE

We used a question on garden ownership: Which of the following best applies to you …?, with possible answers being ‘I have access to a private garden’, ‘I have access to a private communal garden’, ‘I have access to a private outdoor space but not a garden (balcony, yard, patio area)’, or ‘I don’t have access to a garden’.

In relation to what people do in their gardens we used the following question ‘Which of the following activities involving the natural environment do you take part in? Please choose everything you do, both regularly and occasionally’. A number of activities, such as watching or listening to nature programmes, looking at books, photos or websites about the natural world, and watching wildlife, were listed. We used two response relating to the garden: ‘Gardening’ or ‘Sitting or relaxing in a garden’.

Our health and wellbeing outcomes were self-reported general health, evaluative wellbeing; eudaimonic wellbeing, frequency of physical activity and visits to greenspace. More detail can be found on the MENE survey technical reports.

Using the garden for either relaxing or gardening were also associated with reporting high eudaimonic wellbeing (relaxing OR 1.29, CI 1.07-1.55; gardening OR 1.53, CI 1.19-1.98) and visiting nature once a week (relaxing OR 1.26, CI 1.10-1.44; gardening OR 1.36, CI 1.14-1.62). Reporting using the garden for just gardening was associated with reporting better general health (OR 1.56, 1.26-1.95) and with meeting physical activity guidelines (OR 1.24, CI 1.02-1.51).

Owning a private garden was associated with higher evaluative wellbeing than having no garden (OR 1.22, CI 1.02-1.47). Those who had access to a private outdoor space were more likely to meet physical activity guidelines (OR 1.54, 1.15-2.05).

We controlled for many of the other factors that could have accounted for the differences in people’s health: IMD, gender, age, occupation, employment, marital status, children, home ownership, and presence of dogs in household.

Sarah and Clare are inviting contributions which could include short stories, poems, sketches, photos, videos or soundscapes, or other creative approaches. For more information on how to submit visit the Sensing Nature blog. They hope to use the pieces to inform the network, to map people’s responses to various landscapes, and understand how these might be shaped by diverse sensory, cultural and historical values. Subject to author permission, they may share a collection of these pieces online.

The term ‘landscape’ can be interpreted in any way that’s appropriate to you; it might include the sensations that envelop you as you open a window or step outside the front door, or perhaps a more expansive encounter further afield.

One or more of the following questions might help when crafting your response: What is landscape to you? How do landscapes hold you? How do they speak to you? What stories do your landscapes tell? What are your hopes for future landscapes? What do these futures mean for human and biodiversity?

]]>https://beyondgreenspace.net/2020/04/21/inform-unlocking-landscapes/feed/020190908_182109beccalovellSWEEP webinar: Dartmoor National Park and the Naturally Healthy Projecthttps://beyondgreenspace.net/2020/04/21/webinar-dartmoor-naturally-healthy-project/
https://beyondgreenspace.net/2020/04/21/webinar-dartmoor-naturally-healthy-project/#respondTue, 21 Apr 2020 10:33:11 +0000http://beyondgreenspace.net/?p=2872The next in the series of SWEEP project seminars will be taking place on the 22nd May 2020, 11.30-12.30

For our next webinar, we’re welcoming Orlando Rutter, Head of Outreach & Understanding at Dartmoor National Park Authority.

Orlando will talk about findings from the Dartmoor Naturally Healthy project which explored the variety of routes and activities through which people can engage with nature in Dartmoor and improved understanding of barriers and opportunities for three stakeholders groups (medical professionals, people who might benefit from visiting nature and green infrastructure providers). Dartmoor National Park Authority provides opportunities for people to benefit their health and wellbeing through visiting the natural environment as well as working to promote the economic and social wellbeing of local communities in the National Park. Orlando will also look at some of the future drivers for health to prompt discussion in the Q&A session after the talk.

This webinar is particularly relevant for those with an interest in how investment in the environment can impact public health, from health and social care professionals to local planning authorities.

If you haven’t already, you can also sign up to our mailing list to hear about future webinars and other project news Sign up to the mailing list

]]>https://beyondgreenspace.net/2020/04/21/webinar-dartmoor-naturally-healthy-project/feed/0dartmoorbeccalovellhttps://mcusercontent.com/ae544f725a0c9a807a75050fa/images/17690234-2f8b-4822-b5d4-40509b463d4b.jpgECEHH research featured on the BBC’s ‘Trust Me, I’m a Doctor’https://beyondgreenspace.net/2020/02/06/ecehh-research-featured-on-the-bbcs-trust-me-im-a-doctor/
https://beyondgreenspace.net/2020/02/06/ecehh-research-featured-on-the-bbcs-trust-me-im-a-doctor/#respondThu, 06 Feb 2020 17:38:10 +0000http://beyondgreenspace.net/?p=2830The BBC’s Trust Me, I’m a Doctor looked at whether time spent in nature benefits mental health and ran a small experiment testing the recent finding, reported in one of Mat and co’s recent papers, that people who report spending 120 mins or more in nature over the last week had consistently higher levels of health and wellbeing than those who reported less or no time in nature.

“We randomly assigned agroup of 15 volunteers to one of two groups: the first would spend less than two hours a week in nature, the second would spend more than two hours. The aim was to test whether time in nature had a causal effect on wellbeing, stress and mood. We also wanted to find out if exposure to nature affected physiology– such as heart rate variability and cortisol levels, (cortisol is a hormone released under stress).

Our volunteers were all daytime workers, and spent their extra time in nature during their lunch break, in local nearby parks or green spaces. They were asked to sit, relax, or gently walk in nature, but not to walk briskly or do any vigorous exercise. Before and after contact with nature our volunteers filled out a questionnaire which assessed their mood – measures such as positive emotion, arousal, and stress.

At the beginning and end of our experiment, our participants filled out questionnaires which assessed their overall wellbeing [the WHO-5 Wellbeing Index] and their stress [the PSS Perceived Stress Scale].

In addition, their cortisol levels were measured in their saliva and their heart rate variability was measured using ECG electrodes applied to their wrists.

The results

At the end of the three weeks, the group experienced an overall reduction in perceived stress, and an overall increase in wellbeing.

Improvements were also seen in patterns of cortisol levels across the group, but these were very slight; a larger cohort may have yielded more significant results. We saw no indication of heart rate variability.

Comparing how people felt directly before and after nature exposure, our participants reported feeling more energised – increases in positive mood and arousal were found.

Remarkably and most importantly, the results of the experiment showedthat those who spent 120 mins or more in nature per week saw a significant reduction in perceived stress levels of at least 30% – whereas those volunteers who spent less than 120 mins in nature per week did not see a significant drop in stress.

Perhaps surprisingly, weather did not make a difference. In the qualitativedata, participants commented on the bad weather they experienced, in fact one participant even spent time in nature in a hail storm; however, this bad weather did not seem to affect the results they reported.”

]]>https://beyondgreenspace.net/2020/02/06/ecehh-research-featured-on-the-bbcs-trust-me-im-a-doctor/feed/0imagebeccalovellNew paper: can ecological restoration lead to ecological and social benefits?https://beyondgreenspace.net/2020/02/04/new-paper-can-ecological-restoration-lead-to-ecological-and-social-benefits/
https://beyondgreenspace.net/2020/02/04/new-paper-can-ecological-restoration-lead-to-ecological-and-social-benefits/#respondTue, 04 Feb 2020 16:24:44 +0000http://beyondgreenspace.net/?p=2805A new paper from Siân de Bell and colleagues at the University of York suggests that improving the natural environment can enhance the benefits it provides for wellbeing.
The river Medlock after restoration

The aim of the study was to investigate whether the restoration of an urban river, the Medlock in Manchester, was successful in improving the environment and whether the restoration affected the wellbeing of the local community.

The fieldwork was carried out during Sian’s PhD, which was part of the HOPE project at the University of York. Data on the ecological health of the river were collected by sampling and identifying macroinvertebrates. Focus groups were conducted with the local community to discuss how they used the river, the green spaces around it, and their opinions of the restoration.

The study found that the ecological health of the river had improved: there was a greater diversity of macroinvertebrates at the restored site, including species with a lower tolerance for pollution. Local people also thought that the restoration had been effective. They described enjoying the wildlife they saw at the river ‘All of a sudden a kingfisher was fishing there, and you could see little shoals of fish … and … these three dragonflies … all dancing over the river’ and discussed the importance of the river and green space around it for their wellbeing. However, there were concerns that the project had not taken account of the cultural heritage of the area: ‘that (red brick) is also part of our history and some of it should be left’.

Findings from the study suggest that environmental and social benefits are needed to ensure the long-term sustainability of restoration projects, particularly in urban areas.

The live stream of the webinar took place on Friday 6 December 2019. Rupert Lloyd from Public Health Dorset shared his insight into some of the work going on in Dorset, including the Healthy Places project, and gave a Q&A session after the talk. Rupert gave an overview of how ‘Healthy Places’ forms part of wider efforts to promote prevention at scale across the local health and care system, examples of health and environment collaboration in Dorset and the future direction of work in Dorset.

You can watch a recording of the webinar on the SWEEP project hub, you will need to create a (free) account to access the webinars.

Webinar 2: Environmental investment for health outcomes: What does the evidence say?

The second webinar took place on the 21st January 2020. Dr Becca Lovell, Lecturer in Biodiversity and Healthy Policy at the European Centre for Environment and Human Health (ECEHH), introduced the key research on links between the natural environment and human health and wellbeing.

You can watch a recording of the webinar on the SWEEP project hub, you will need to create a (free) account to access the webinars.

Our webinars are open to everyone so please share with anyone who might be interested. If you’d like to sign up for future webinars, or are interested in knowing more about the project, contact Sian de Bell at s.c.de-bell@exeter.ac.uk or visit our project webpage and sign up to access resources on the SWEEP project hub.

Environmental investment for health outcomes: what does the evidence say?

Dr Becca Lovell, Lecturer in Biodiversity and Healthy Policy at the European Centre for Environment and Human Health, will be presenting our second webinar.

Join us for this webinar to learn more about the key research on links between the natural environment and human health and wellbeing, their benefits and how this knowledge is informing investment in interventions such as green prescribing and urban greenspace provision. Becca will give an overview of the evidence, discuss information gaps, and talk about the implications of the evidence for different sectors such as urban planning and public health. The talk will be followed by a Q&A session.

This webinar is particularly relevant for those with an interest in how investment in the environment can impact public health, from health and social care professionals to local planning authorities.To register for the webinar and reserve your place, visit:

Our webinars are free of charge and open to everyone, so if you know anyone else in these fields who might be interested, please do forward this email to them. You can also view our previous webinar here.

Part of the South West Partnership for Environmental and Economic Prosperity (SWEEP) Environmental investment for health outcomes project.

]]>https://beyondgreenspace.net/2020/01/14/sweep-project-webinars-environmental-investment-for-health-outcomes-what-does-the-evidence-say/feed/520191016_202057beccalovellECEHH – WHO Collaborating Centre in Natural Environments and Health at the University of Exeterhttps://beyondgreenspace.net/2019/11/26/ecehh-who-collaborating-centre/
https://beyondgreenspace.net/2019/11/26/ecehh-who-collaborating-centre/#respondTue, 26 Nov 2019 12:23:21 +0000http://beyondgreenspace.net/?p=2762We are hugely honored to be able to announce that ECEHH is now a World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre on Natural Environments and Health! The status of WHO Collaborating Centre on Natural Environments and Health reflects the Centre’s significant contribution to science and policy-making from just over a decade of interdisciplinary research.

WHO Collaborating Centers

The World Health Organization (WHO) requires expert advice and scientific insight to carry out its mandate as the United Nations’ authority on international health. Collaborating Centres feed into the development of both reports and technical work which help the WHO set global health priorities and support its member states to tackle health challenges.

WHO Collaborating Center on Environment and Health

Through the new WHO Collaborating Centre on Natural Environments and Health, the European Centre will form an integral part of an international collaborative network on environment and human health, and help to support the WHO’s commitment to enhancing the scientific validity and relevance of its global health work.

Among several streams of work, the European Centre will support the WHO to compile evidence on the links between natural resources, environment and health, and will work to increase awareness of these complex interconnections. The designation recognises a history of collaboration between the two organisations and solidifies efforts to develop capacities and support functions on nature and health across different countries and regions.

“We’re thrilled to become a WHO Collaborating Centre, which is a testament to the incredible body of work our team has produced since we launched in 2011. Understanding the links between the environment and human health is even more important than ever and we look forward to extending our global reach in this vital area.”

“In the last two years, the WHO Regional Office for Europe has reviewed environment and health knowledge gaps and priorities for research. We’re very excited to welcome the European Centre for Environment and Human Health as a collaborator in this effort and the WHO will greatly benefit from its experience in unravelling the interdisciplinary links between natural environments and health.”

As part of the South West Partnership for Environmental and Economic Prosperity (SWEEP) Environmental investment for health outcomes project, we’re hosting a series of webinars to share policy, practice and research stories from across the South West.

Public Health Dorset: Stories from the Healthy Places project

06 December 2019, 1pm

For our first webinar, we’re pleased to welcome Rupert Lloyd from Public Health Dorset. A key part of contemporary public health strategy in many places, including Dorset, is ‘prevention at scale’, developing policies and programmes to improve health and prevent disease through actions at the scale of the wider population rather than only treatment of the individual. In this context, one strand of activity is to focus on ‘healthy places’ – considering the ways in which the places we live shape our health, and how changes to physical and social environments support good health and wellbeing, and contribute to prevention at scale.

Join us for this webinar to learn more about some of the work going on in Dorset, including the Healthy Places project, and take part in a Q&A session after the talk. Rupert will give an overview of how ‘Healthy Places’ forms part of wider efforts to promote prevention at scale across the local health and care system, examples of health and environment collaboration in Dorset and the future direction of work.

Our webinars are open to everyone so please share with anyone who might be interested. If you’d like to sign up for future webinars, or are interested in knowing more about the project, contact Sian de Bell at s.c.de-bell@exeter.ac.uk or visit our project webpage.

]]>https://beyondgreenspace.net/2019/11/19/sweep-project-webinars-starting-6th-dec-2019-public-health-dorset/feed/0benedictwheelerClick here to sign up to the webinarNew: Demystifying Health Metrics Paperhttps://beyondgreenspace.net/2019/10/28/new-demystifying-health-metrics-paper/
https://beyondgreenspace.net/2019/10/28/new-demystifying-health-metrics-paper/#respondMon, 28 Oct 2019 13:59:55 +0000http://beyondgreenspace.net/?p=2744Mat White and Deb Cracknell have coordinated the fourth paper in the VNP’s Demystifying Series: ‘Demystifying Health Metrics’. The paper aims to unpack quantitative measures of health & wellbeing to demonstrate the value of the natural environment for human health & wellbeing for the natural capital community. Members of the team worked on a previous paper demystifying the concept of ‘Health’.

What are health metrics?

“Health metrics are measures of health determinants, states, or outcomes. They may relate to general health status, (healthy-) life expectancy, disease (communicable or non-communicable), fitness, function and/or capacity (including mental/cognitive capacity and physical disability), injury, or death. They can cover both acute (short-term) states such as negative mood or temporary back pain, and chronic (long-term or recurring) conditions such as depression or chronic back pain. Health related metrics usually refer not to the health states themselves but to health determinants or risk factors, such as diet, physical activity, smoking, environmental pollution or unsafe work environments. Health metrics typically relate to either incidence, the rate of new cases of the health outcome, or prevalence, the proportion of ‘cases’ in the population during a specific period of time (period prevalence) or on a given date (point prevalence). Health metrics can be used at an individual, community or population level.

Health metrics are used for many different purposes including:

Monitoring population health and inequalities inhealth outcomes

Tracking extent or progression of disease

Assessing the efficacy of health interventions

Valuing different health promotion or care options

Targeting health investment and activity

Some health metrics enable comparisons across different health states (e.g. Disability Adjusted Life Years [DALYs] and Quality Adjusted Life Years [QALYs]) and, with caution, can be translated into economic values to support decision making. Individual health metrics can also be brought together to create tools such as the Global Burden of Disease which is used to ‘quantify health loss from hundreds of diseases, injuries, and risk factors, so that health systems can be improved and disparities can be eliminated’. ”

Who’s it for?

The paper is written for the natural capital community most involved in commissioning, conducting and interpreting other’s investigations into the links between natural environments and health, but who do not have extensive formal training in research approaches in this area. Third-sector environmental organisations, national park managers, local authority teams and some central government agency staff (e.g. Natural England) are all examples of our target audience. Although the issues discussed are global we focus primarily on the UK setting.

Additional Resources

In addition to the paper we have provided a number of additional resources:

How was it developed?

The report draws on ideas and feedback from participants at two expert stakeholder workshops (London/Leeds, June 2019) and iterative consultation with the wider VNP community, including responses to earlier drafts of this document:

Lead Authors:

Drs. Deborah Cracknell, Rebecca Lovell, Benedict Wheeler and Mathew White at the European Centre for Environment & Human Heath, University of Exeter.

Key consultants throughout the process:

Val Woods and Dr. Sunita Sarkar at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, and Dr. Ruth Garside, Prof. Lora Fleming and Prof. Ian Bateman at the University of Exeter.

Contributors who helped set the agenda and commented on earlier drafts included: